That's Europinion!

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:08 pm

Poll runs one week. Non-Americans, you're on the honor system here. Comment all you want but please don't vote in this poll.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:13 pm

I think of it as the same as any other recommendation. They're making it with their own interests at heart, and that's their prerogative. The fact that it's foreign-based really doesn't seem like a worthwhile division to make to me.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:40 pm

I'll have to go with MYOB. The rest of the world should let America conduct its own business without feeling a need to keep up a running political commentary.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:59 pm

I think it could be taken as a sign--if someone is for this, they are well out of touch with reality. Let people of other countries vote on American leaders?!

Would you happen to have a news source on the subject I could look at?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:20 pm

I didn't answer the poll, because I saw the elaboration has asking different questions. I think foreign opinion matters as something to take into consideration, but I wouldn't base my decision on it. I don't think foreign money is a good thing in domestic elections, even(!) when it's our money trying to influence foreign elections.

So, Yes and No.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:30 pm

Let's not get anal about it. I'll remove the elaboration.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:31 pm

ahahaahah.
this poll on this board? (i voted for b)

ya'll too busy strengthening your "resolve" from your armchairs.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:42 pm

Bash, I wasn't getting anal, merely stating that I could have answered as A or C, your two opposing choices.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:43 pm

Vander, it's an informal poll. Choose the closest answer that fits, regardless of whether more than one selection could apply.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:06 pm

I chose C. On the other hand, certain foreign leaders supposedly backing Kerry may influence a certain segment of the american pop. into voting for Kerry. Then again these self-same voters would be voting for Kerry anyway.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 2:19 am

If anyone touches my stuff, I'll kill ya!

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:16 am

Homo.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:39 am

i'd think that foriegn involvement could possibly have a place in making sure the elections are free and fair.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 6:00 am

Believe it or not, some international whackos are sending a delegation to Florida to monitor the election down there. :rolleyes:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... florida_dc

Grandstanding? naaaa. Silly foreigners, everyone knows you never return to the scene of the crime to *steal* an election twice. This election it will be stolen in New York City and then will turn up on ebay several weeks later.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:04 am

Damn, you just spoiled my contract work for the GOP...

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:42 am

rofl @ poll

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:28 pm

As far as international contributions, I don't think foreign involvement is that big of a deal. They can't vote but why shouldn't they try to influence someone. Just as the US government wants certain types of governments in different countries and supports those, so should other countries. Please don't take this as a North Korea liberal anti Bush nuke Texas deal. It's not, they don't get to vote and if someone is dumb enough to allow Poland to influence their vote, let it be. Bush somehow influenced almost 30 million people to vote for him, and that's scary enough.

Delkian · Post by **Delkian** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:32 pm

Foreign view:

Top Gun wrote:The rest of the world should let America conduct its own business without feeling a need to keep up a running political commentary.

America affects the rest of the world and also tries to affect the governments there, why shouldn't the rest of the world try to affect the government that probably influences other countries and peoples' lives globally more than any other government in the world?

bash wrote:Believe it or not, some international whackos are sending a delegation to Florida to monitor the election down there.

Why wouldn't international monitoring be a good idea? "It's not needed because this is a democratic country" doesn't count - everyone could say the same, and if you're sure that nothing wrong is going to happen anyway, why shouldn't you let the event be monitored internationally?

I would welcome international observers for elections here. If they find out nothing worse than dirty election campaigns, cool, if they do find out something, damn good that we get to know it.

So, influence yes, observation yes, voting no. It's a country, not an international body where the whole world should be able to vote, even though it does influence the rest of the world a lot.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 3:39 pm

Vander wrote:If anyone touches my stuff, I'll kill ya!

Lighten up Francis.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 3:40 pm

a good idea can come from any source - even a source that is otherwise questionable. the notion that foreigners cannot contribute by virtue of being foreign to America is akin to an ad hominem argument.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:18 pm

Fair enough Palzon, but I find the argument that 'Bush has got european leaders mad at us, he must not be re-elected for that reason. We need to restore our standing in the world.' to be an ad hominem attack!

ad hoÂ·miÂ·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hÃ¤-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

I think someone better explain why, for instance, France's opinion matters when the truth is France was secretly protecting billions of dollars in oil futures contracts by it's position on the war. Similar skeletons in the closets of Russia and Germany.

Without those allies holding out and the influence we know they used on smaller countries in threatening exclusion from joining in the european community, we would have had the very coalition the anti-Bush crowd says we failed to get.

Sure they have every right to voice their opinion and protect their interests, but I have a right to question the opportunism and pure disingenuous political nature of an american presidential candidate who so blatently appeals to feelings and prejudices of ignorant voters rather than make an intellectual case that supports the foriegners opinions!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 6:45 pm

Delkian wrote: Why wouldn't international monitoring be a good idea? "It's not needed because this is a democratic country" doesn't count - everyone could say the same, and if you're sure that nothing wrong is going to happen anyway, why shouldn't you let the event be monitored internationally?

Delkian, I think you have a one eyed view of the florida election as seen through a liberal lens seeking to discredit a process that the liberals were really in control of. The re-count issue revolved around a select few precincts that the democratic spin machine decided to do a magic card act on and throw up on stage the illusion of voter dis-enfranchisement in combo with dis-advantaged blacks and poor slow witted elderly pensioners. What was hidden stage right was the fact the these counties were liberal controlled. Liberals controlled the polling locations, liberals controlled how late the precincts stayed open and liberals controlled the press that presented to the world that somehow all this was the fault of mean, evil republican operatives.
So in short the idea of foreign observors coming in to Dade county to oversite the pres. election is laughable. What they should be observing is how the liberals will try to twist the reason they lost the the election and how foreign news services will vacuum up the liberals presentation of conservative vote tampering as somehow being "The Great Truth".

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 8:53 pm

Why wouldn't international monitoring be a good idea? "It's not needed because this is a democratic country" doesn't count - everyone could say the same, and if you're sure that nothing wrong is going to happen anyway, why shouldn't you let the event be monitored internationally?

Delkian, the answer should be self-evident. It's an intentional insult by implication that 1) Bush stole the last election and 2) we cannot be trusted to police our own democracy (especially considering the legions of Democratic lawyers who will be out in force hoping to find some obscure legal basis to have the entire process thrown into court in an effort to reverse another legitimate loss).

But, hey, if you think it serves Europe's interests to deliver yet another slap in the face to America, bring it. Many of us retain very little respect or affinity for our former *allies* so I doubt the insulting nature of their presence *monitoring* our election would be viewed as a positive step toward mending fences.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:37 pm

This just in...

KERRY: NO FOREIGN ENDORSEMENTS, PLEASE... Kerry Foreign Policy Advisor Rand Beers issued the following statement today: '...It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America's presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements'...

Classic Kerry! Having woken up to the fact that *foreign endorsement* might actually be viewed domestically as a negative factor, he makes flippy floppy.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:47 pm

Speaking of foreign influence, this is a bit off topic, but interesting and something I hadn't heard about:

[quote]
There is growing evidence that the Mexican government, in similar fashion, is working with a group called the Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior (â??Institute of Mexicans Abroadâ?

Delkian · Post by **Delkian** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 5:31 pm

woodchip wrote:Delkian, I think you have a one eyed view of the florida election as seen through a liberal lens seeking to discredit a process that the liberals were really in control of.

In fact I didn't consider the 'Florida' part of it at all in the first place - I somehow disregarded it altogether. So, the quote was a little off.

[off-topic]
Cool. I've posted, what, around a dozen messages or so here in this forum lately and I'm already a liberal.

You're right, though - I am. That is, liberal in the correct sense of the word, not in the "democratic vs. republican" == "liberal vs. conservative" sense.
[/off-topic]

What was hidden stage right was the fact the these counties were liberal controlled. Liberals controlled the polling locations, liberals controlled how late the precincts stayed open

I don't suppose anyone has claimed that who 'controls' the polling locations means much. It doesn't, unless it's a rather unfair and corrupt election from the beginning.

I, too, do consider the whole vote count mess a little weird. It is clear that the democrats tried to get things solved to their benefit - but then, I have no doubt that so did the republicans. When the situation is (apparently) so tight in matters like that, of course both parties do their best to turn things to their benefit.

Edit:
It doesn't mean that I condone all means for that - I'm merely saying that pointing fingers at one of the parties alone is hardly to the point.

bash wrote:It's an intentional insult by implication that 1) Bush stole the last election and

Yea, the quote was misplaced. Like I said, I didn't consider the 'Florida' part of the original message. Sorry about the confusion.

2) we cannot be trusted to police our own democracy

By that same argument you could call any monitoring of any election anywhere vain.

Like I said, I'd be happy to have objective observers here.

especially considering the legions of Democratic lawyers who will be out in force hoping to find some obscure legal basis to have the entire process thrown into court in an effort to reverse another legitimate loss).

What makes you think that the republicans wouldn't (or didn't) try all they could in a close situation? Of course it was initiated by the democrats (if we assume that it was one of the parties, not a neutral body) in the Florida mess - that who is winning usually doesn't want to change the situation - but I'm sure that there was just as much behind-the-scenes stuff happening on the republican side during the process.

If a similar situation were to arise now after the previous mess, both parties would probably be quite careful of how they want to present themselves - for the democrats another such struggle (in case they were losing) in a row would certainly be irksome, and the republicans wouldn't want to make up a show like that either if they were losing by a little. So, if the republicans are about to lose by a little this time and we still don't get to enjoy such a farce, don't come and tell me that I was wrong and that the republicans would never do it.

But, hey, if you think it serves Europe's interests to deliver yet another slap in the face to America, bring it.

Intentionally slapping American in the face probably wouldn't serve Europe's current interests. Competing does, but I don't really see how such slaps would benefit Europe in general, not in economic or any other competition.

Differing opinions and military and political segregation might be, but not a slap without much gain in that sense.

I just didn't see it as a slap. It does look more like one if the Florida card enters play, as obviously was the case in the original message.

On the other hand, I myself would regard higher the certainty that the government, the authorities or political parties in my country don't cheat me too much than I would national pride. Of course I'm not you, not everyone there, and certainly not everyone here either - my view is probably quite rare.

Many of us retain very little respect or affinity for our former *allies*

Gee, I get to speak for an entire continent! Even for countries that I've only briefly visited at most! (that is, your allies - unless, of course, you mean that the entire Europe is your former ally)

I'm certain that your statements of little respect definitely help a lot at overcoming disputes. But fear not, I avoid generalisation.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:01 pm

Brevity is the soul of lingerie.

That's Europinion!

How Do You Feel About Foreign Involvement In US Elections?

That's Europinion!